Bang, Ji Young, Hawes, Robert, Bartolucci, Albert, Varadarajulu, Shyam
abstract
Background and AimMetal stents are being used more frequently for transmural endoscopic drainage of pancreatic fluid collections (PFC) despite lack of data. The present systematic review was conducted to compare the rates of treatment success, adverse events and recurrence between patients undergoing metal versus plastic stent placement for endoscopic transmural drainage of PFC. MethodsMEDLINE and EMBASE were searched to identify all published manuscripts that evaluated metal stents for endoscopic transmural drainage of PFC. All published studies from the same period involving plastic stent placement for PFC drainage that included >50 patients were also identified. Main outcome measures were to compare the rates of treatment success, adverse events and recurrence between the metal and plastic stent cohorts. ResultsSeventeen studies (881 patients) met inclusion criteria. There was no difference in overall treatment success between patients treated with plastic and metal stents (81% [95% CI, 77-84%] vs 82% [95% CI, 74-88%]) for both pseudocysts (85% [95% CI, 81-89%] vs 83% [95% CI, 74-89%]) and walled-off necrosis (70% [95% CI, 62-76%] vs 78% [95% CI, 50-93%]). Also, there was no difference in the rates of adverse events (16% [95% CI, 14-39%] vs 23% [95% CI, 16-33%]) or recurrence (10% [95% CI, 8-13%] vs 9% [95% CI, 4-19%]) between plastic and metal stents. ConclusionsCurrent evidence does not support routine placement of metal stents for transmural drainage of PFC. Randomized trials are needed to justify the use of metal stents for PFC drainage.